On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 12:50:32PM +0100, Philipp Morger wrote:
|
| IMHO it's quite a shame that in a new RFC IPv6 has to struggle
| with IPv4 - remember, RFCs sometimes get quite old, so in 20 years when
| IPv4 is just a page in the history books, you might still have this RFC
| in place and I also want to point out, that once this dns records are in
| place, it would take the same effort to upgrade those records to a new
| version. So IMHO it's quite bad to mix v4 and v6 and the thought in me
| came up that: I mean look at it: ::1//128 - anybody who is in the network
| field must ask himself - what where thoses guys thinking?
|
These are good criticisms. Could you suggest a better syntax for the
following mechanisms?
a
mx
ip4
ip6
thanks
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡